Evolutions of the Eighth Amendment and Standards for the Imposition of the Death Penalty

Transcription

1 DePaul Law Review Volume 28 Issue 2 Winter 1979 Article 5 Evolutions of the Eighth Amendment and Standards for the Imposition of the Death Penalty Lynn Kristine Mitchell Grace E. Wein Follow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation Lynn K. Mitchell & Grace E. Wein, Evolutions of the Eighth Amendment and Standards for the Imposition of the Death Penalty, 28 DePaul L. Rev. 351 (1979) Available at: This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact wsulliv6@depaul.edu, c.mcclure@depaul.edu.

2 COMMENTS EVOLUTIONS OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND STANDARDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY A relatively simple statement in the eighth amendment forbids the government from utilizing "cruel and unusual" methods of punishment.' This seemingly innocuous prohibition has resulted in considerable consternation when its applicability to the death penalty has been asserted. Historically, the United States Supreme Court avoided direct confrontation with this issue by upholding the constitutionality of death penalty cases on issues not specifically related to whether the punishment of death was per se "cruel and unusual." In the landmark decision of Furman v. Georgia, 2 however, it held for the first time that the death penalty, as it was then being administered, was "cruel and unusual" and consequently a violation of the eighth amendment. Since this 1972 opinion, the Court has made a number of rulings concerning the constitutionality of capital punishment. In Lockett v. Ohio, 3 the most recent pronouncement on the subject, an attempt was made to both clarify the confusion resulting from the Furman decision and to refine the standards required to impose a sentence of death. This Comment will analyze the Supreme Court's numerous decisions regarding the eighth amendment and capital punishment. It will discuss the significant changes and confusion which resulted from Furman and culminated in the more thorough analysis attempted in Lockett. Finally, the predominant themes underlying many of the Court's decisions will be analyzed in an effort to articulate the present state of the law in this area. I. ANALYSIS OF "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL" AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO THE DEATH PENALTY To understand thoroughly the diversity of opinion concerning the issue of capital punishment, it is imperative to comprehend the constitutional definition of the term "cruel and unusual." Historically, the cruel and unusual punishment doctrine has not been well developed. No one test has been applied consistently, nor has the phrase "cruel and unusual" been precisely defined U.S. CONST. amend. VIII reads as follows: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted U.S. 238 (1972) S. Ct (1978). 4. In several opinions, the Court has acknowledged that the definition is imprecise and the exact scope of the phrase has never been defined. See, e.g., Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 99

3 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:351 The Supreme Court's primary concentration has been on the word "cruel" when determining what punishments are prohibited. The attempt at a definition for "unusual" has led to a number of diverse interpretations. For example, "unusual" signifies something different from that which is generally dones: penalties are unusual if they are imposed very rarely6; innovative punishments are not unusual if they are no more cruel than those which supersede them 7; and all extreme and barbarous penalties are unusual regardless of how infrequently they are imposed." Similarly, on the general question of what constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment, the Supreme Court, although ruling a number of times on the subject, has developed no comprehensive theory with regard to the eighth amendment. Several themes, however, run through the cases. The four main principles are: (1) the punishment must not be inherently cruel; (2) it must not be disproportionate to the offense charged; (3) it must not be an affront to the concept of human dignity; and (4) any definition of "cruel and unusual" must comport with the Court's conception of public opinion regarding cruelty. While these themes have been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, the reasons given for applying them in specific cases have often been inconsistent. Inherent Cruelty If a punishment is deemed to be cruel, then ipso facto it is a violation of the eighth amendment. The question, therefore, obviously centers on what sorts of practices will be considered by the courts to be cruel. The Supreme Court has attempted a definition of this elusive term by striving to describe what kinds of punishments are inherently cruel. In accordance with this effort, the Court has used such phrases as "something inhumane and barbarous, something which inflicts a lingering death" 9 and "punishments of torture" or "unnecessary cruelty." 1 0 It has never, however, defined unnecessary cruelty nor has it indicated whether in reality it can be distinguished from torture. Public shooting" and electrocution 12 have been held not to (1958). See also Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, (1878), in which the Court stated: "Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted." It is significant to note that Justice Brennan asserted that the Wilkerson statement remains true today. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S, 238, 258 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring). 5. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, n.32 (1958). 6. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 390 (1972) (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 7. Id. at 331 (Marshall, J., concurring). 8. Id. at 376 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 9. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447 (1890). 10. Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 136 (1878). 11. Id. at 130. Wilkerson was "charged with wilful, malicious, and premeditated murder" and was found guilty. Id. He was then sentenced to "be taken from [your] place of confinement to some place within this district and that you there be publicly shot until you are dead." Id. at In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890). Kemmler was found guilty of murder in the first degree. His sentence was to have "a current of electricity of sufficient intensity to cause death"

4 1979] DEATH PENALTY constitute unnecessary cruelty because they are instantaneous and painless methods of execution. 13 The Court has even held 1 4 that a second electrocution, when the first attempt failed due to mechanical difficulty, did not constitute unnecessary pain. 15 The rationale was that some pain could be constitutional if it was not inflicted for inhumane reasons. 16 The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that some penalties are inherently cruel in all cases, regardless of the purpose of the punishment. This type of punishment has been defined primarily by example, specifically including disembowlment, public dissection, buring alive, 17 crucifixion, and "breaking at the wheel." 18 Such judicial statements clearly indicate that the tortures practiced during the Stuart reign in England, which the Framers definitely intended to forbid, 19 are per se unconstitutional. This concept of inherently cruel punishment, though, has been expanded to include political punishments as well, a development probably not anticipated by the Framers. In one instance, 20 denationalization was held to be prohibited by the eighth amendment as being a punishment more primitive than torture. The Court reasoned that this punishment "destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development... [and] strips the citizen pass through his body "and that the application of such current of electricity be continued until he... be dead... Id. at The degree of physical pain involved in all methods of execution is questionable. Death by electrocution and shooting are often by no means instantaneous and may be extraordinarily painful. See Gottlieb, Testing the Death Penalty, 34 S. CAL. L. REV. 268 (1961). 14. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947). The defendant, Willie Francis, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by electrocution. However, when the time came for the execution "[t]he executioner threw the switch but, presumably because of some mechanical difficulty, death did not result." Id. at 460. He was then returned to prison while his appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. 15. Id. at 464. The dissenting opinion noted that, in this case, electrocution was not instantaneous and painless and anything other than one continuous application of electricity would be unnecessarily cruel. (d. at The majority opinion did not delineate where the line would be drawn in which a certain number of successive attempts would be prohibited. 16. Id. at 464. This rationale was also used in In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1870), where the Court asserted that although a punishment such as electrocution may be considered "unusual" because of its novelty, it is not inherently cruel if the legislature enacted it for a humane purpose. Id. at Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 135 (1878). For an interesting discussion of the history of certain types of punishment, and an analysis of the present forms of punishment and the eighth amendment, see Gardner, Executions and Indignities-An Eighth Amendment Assessment of Methods of Inflicting Capital Punishment, 39 OHIO ST. L. J. 96 (1978). 18. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 446 (1890). 19. See generally M. MELTSNER, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL: THE SUPREME COURT AND CAP- ITAL PUNISHMENT (1973); Granucci, "Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishment Inflicted" The Original Meaning, 57 CALIF. L. REV. 839 (1969). Until the twentieth century, the cruel and unusual punishment clause was hardly ever involved in the courts because the "barbarities" of Stuart England were not used in America. During the nineteenth century, commentators assumed the clause had become obsolete, particularly since attempts to extend the meaning of the clause to cover punishments that were disproportionate to crimes had been rebuffed. See also Note, What is Cruel and Unusual Punishment?, 24 HARV. L. REV. 54 (1910). 20. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

5 354 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:351 of his status in the national and international political community." ' 2 In short, the citizen loses his right to have rights. This rationale apparently broadened the concept of inherent cruelty because it moved beyond a concern with extreme lingering physical pain, emphasizing instead political and psychological stresses. 2 2 This analysis simplifies the categories or types of punishments which are impermissible. Rather, it deals with the nature and kind of punishments which are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has also held, though, that the extent of the punishment inflicted may be the determinative factor as to whether or not it is cruel. Proportionality Closely analogous to the theory that a punishment in itself can be too severe and therefore unconstitutional is the idea that a punishment may be prohibited by the eighth amendment if it is excessive in degree. The Supreme Court first encountered this issue in a case in which a prison sentence of over fifty years for the illegal sale of liquor was held not to violate the constitution. 2 3 Although the majority did not address the eighth amendment question, the dissent asserted that the inhibition of the eighth amendment is directed "against all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportioned to the offense charged." 24 In Weems v. United States, 2 5 the Court was presented with a factual situation which enabled it directly to decide the constitutionality of excessive 21. Id. at This reasoning conflicts with the Resweber opinion in which the Court rejected the notion that undergoing a second impending electrocution would be unconstitutional mental cruelty. "'The situation of the unfortunate victim of this accident is just as though he had suffered the identical amount of mental anguish and physical pain in any other occurrence, such as, for example, a fire in the cell block." Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 464 (1947). It is strange that the Court considers the mental suffering in loss of citizenship excessive cruelty but not the fear and distress of a man who knows he is about to be killed. Indeed, Justice Frankfurter asked in dissent: "[i]s constitutional dialectic so empty of reason that it can be seriously urged that loss of citizenship is a fate worse than death?" Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 125 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 23. O'Neill v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323 (1892). 24. Id. at (Field, J., dissenting) U.S. 349 (1910). The Weems Court did not delineate how a court should decide whether a punishment is excessive. Perhaps this is one reason why courts have been reluctant to apply the proportionality precept reflected in Weems. Many commentators have bemoaned the lack of attention given by the courts to the application of the proportionality theory. See, e.g., Packer, Making the Punishment Fit The Crime, 77 HARv. L. REv. 1071, 1074 (1964); Note, The Effectiveness of the Eighth Amendment: An Appraisal of Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 36 N.Y.U.L. REV. 846, 848 (1961). However, one court has revived the proportionality theory in Downey v. Perini, 518 F.2d 1288 (6th Cir.), vacated and remanded, 423 U.S. 993 (1975). Downey was found guilty of violating an Ohio statute which prohibited possession of marijuana for sale. It was Downey's first drug-related offense and very small amounts of marijuana were involved. He received 10 to 20 years for possession with intent to sell and 20 to 40 years for the actual sale. The Court held

6 1979] DEATH PENALTY punishment. In that case, a public official in the Phillipines had been convicted of falsifying an official document to conceal the wrongful disposition of a small sum of money. He was fined and sentenced to fifteen years of cadena temporal, a punishment which consisted of hard labor and constant enchainment. Additionally, he was subjected to continual surveillance and a loss of civil rights. Noting that even the minimum punishment for Weem's offense was twelve years of cadena, the Court held that the sentence was cruelly excessive in relation to the crime committed. After comparing the sanctions likely to be imposed for similar crimes in the United States, the Court asserted that justice demands that a punishment "should be graduated and proportioned to the offense." 26 The Weems Court also stated that the standard of excessiveness articulated in its opinion applied not only to the proportionality between the punishment and the crime, but also to the severity of the penalty necessary to achieve the proper purposes of punishment. 27 If the purpose of the punishment is inappropriate, then the degree of the punishment may be irrelevant; even non-excessive punishment is a violation of the eighth amendment if it is imposed to sanction behavior deemed not to be criminal in nature. In Robinson v. California, 28 the defendant was convicted under a California statute making it illegal to be addicted to narcotics. The majority found drug addiction to be an illness and held, therefore, that any punishment would be prohibited. 29 The punishment of ninety days imprisonment was not thought to be excessive punishment in terms of inflicting an undue physical or mental burden. Nonetheless, the Robinson Court stated: "'[e]ven one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the 'crime' of having a common cold." 3 0 that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime, in violation of the eighth amendment. The Downey majority based its holding on a comparison with sentences for the same offenses in other jurisdictions, a comparison with sentences for more violent crimes in Ohio, the legislative purpose the Ohio statute intended to further and evolving concepts of justice and penology. Id. at For further discussion of this case, see Note, Constitutional Law-Eighth Amendment- Appellate Sentence Review, 1976 Wis. L. REv See also Davis v. Zahradnick, 432 F. Supp. 444 (W.D. Va. 1977), where it was held that 40 years imprisonment and $20,000 in fines on conviction of marijuana charges was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. 26. Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910). 27. Id. at : U.S. 660 (1962). 29. The evil in this case was punishing Robinson for his addiction, a status rather than an act. The Court noted that narcotic addiction was an illness that could be contracted innocently or involuntarily and criminal sanctions for other illnesses such as leprosy, venereal disease or mental illness would also be prohibited. Id. at Id. at 667. Despite the Robinson Court's ruling that the imposition of criminal sanctions for the mere status of being a narcotics addict was unconstitutional, the Court ruled in Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), that it is not cruel and unusual punishment to impose criminal sanctions upon a person for being found intoxicated in a public place. The Court acknowledged the Robinson holding, but reasoned that Powell was being punished for his "act" of public drunkenness and not his "status" of alcohol addiction. Therefore, criminal sanctions could be

7 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:351 Excessiveness is, therefore, a factor in the consideration of whether a punishment is cruel. The concept of excessiveness may be considered in relation either to the extent of the punishment or to the appropriateness of imposing sanctions on the defendant's activity. This idea of excessiveness, moreover, is clearly inherent in the definition of cruel. The Concept of Human Dignity A punishment may not fall into a particular category deemed to be inherently cruel, and it may not necessarily be excessive for the crime charged, but nonetheless it may be deemed "cruel and unusual" if it affronts the basic concepts of human dignity. This concept appears as a consistent theme in eighth amendment cases. The Court has stated that "[t]he basic concept underlying the eighth amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man," 3 1 a purpose which illegitimates punishments intended to destroy, deny or degrade the humanity of a criminal. This theme is comparable to the first definition of "inherent cruelty," but the distinction here seems to center on the difference between specifically enumerated prohibitions and a theoretical framework of unacceptable punishments. Many of the cases dealing with these concepts, however, intertwine the analysis and jumble the distinctions. Although the Supreme Court has been in general agreement that punishments which affront human dignity violate the eighth amendment, it has not clearly defined the perimeters of "decency." 32 While the Court has asserted that various forms used to deter such anti-social conduct and a fine of fifty dollars was held not to be disproportionate to the "crime" of public drunkenness even if the drunkenness was due to chronic alcoholism. Poweil v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 532 (1968). In contrast, the dissenting opinion was premised on the disease concept of alcoholism-that the defendant was powerless to avoid the forbidden behavior and criminal penalties could not be inflicted upon a person for being in a condition which he was powerless to change. Id. at (Fortas, J., dissenting). If chronic alcoholism is a disease like drug addiction, any distinction between Robinson and Powell is certainly questionable. For an analysis of Robinson and Powell, see Tao, Criminal Drunkenness and the Law, 54 IOWA L. REV (1969). In examining medical theories on the disease concept of alcoholism, one commentator has noted that there are probably as many psychological theories set forth to explain alcoholism as there are systematic psychological theories. Id. at For a more recent analysis of the debate of alcoholism as a disease, see Davies, Is Alcoholism Really a Disease?, 3 CONTEMP. DRUG 197 (1974). An alternative defense to the disease concept of alcoholism has been the defense of involuntariness, since the criminal law doctrine of actus reus requires voluntary conduct for criminal responsibility. See Tao, Psychiatry and the Utility of Traditional Criminal Approach to Drunkenness Offenses, Symposium-Psychiatry and Treatment, 57 CEO. L. J. No. 4 (1969); Comment, Criminal Law: Chronic Alcoholism as a Defense to Crime, 61 MINN. L. REV. 901 (1977). 31. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 (1958). 32. For example, in Weems the Court spoke of "decency" when it determined that a punishment may be so aberrational as to violate standards of decency more or less universally accepted. Additionally, in Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), the dissenters asserted that anything other than death by one continuous application of electricity would "shock the most fundamental instincts of civilized man." Id. at 473 (Burton, J., dissenting).

8 1979] DEATH PENALTY of torture affront human dignity, the punishment of death itself has never been considered inhumane. 3 3 Moreover, the existence of a humane purpose behind the punishment of death has been found to save it from the category of "cruel and unusual" punishment. Apparently, if the purpose of any given sanction is not to inflict unnecessary pain, it will comport with the concept of respecting human dignity. 3 4 This theory is extremely elusive and seemingly predicated on a predetermined definition of "dignity." Although this premise has never been articulated by the Court, it nonetheless is a pervasive rationale which on several occasions has been utilized to invalidate certain punishments. The fact that the Court will look to the purpose behind the punishment, however, indicates the extremely subjective nature of this concept. Further, the Court's silence has rendered the concept so vague and uncertain that the inevitable result has been a determination of each case on an ad hoc basis. Public Opinion The term "cruelty," as defined thus far, would be incomplete without a discussion of the method the Court utilizes to ascertain the boundaries of the concept. Public opinion has played a significant role in determinations of whether a punishment is "cruel and unusual. '' 3 The Court has often expressed its view that the eighth amendment must be interpreted in terms of a changing society. This means that it will look not only to the Framer's intent, but also to the "evolving standards of decency which mark the progress of a maturing society." 3 6 The Supreme Court has also used this changing social mores concept in ruling against punishments which were not in the traditional "torture" category. Public opinion, however, has also been used for the opposite purpose. Relying on the more static level of minimum social tolerances, the Court has justified upholding certain traditional punishments because they have enjoyed the public support throughout history. This factor, for example, was 33. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 135 (1878); In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 446 (1890). See alao note 17 and accompanying text supra. 34. Although the perimeters of unnecessary cruelty within this context have not been defined, it is clear that instantaneous and painless methods of execution are not an affront to dignity. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, , (1890). However, in Resweber, a second electrocution was not instantaneous and painless, but the Court nevertheless upheld it, noting that there was no inhumane purpose in inflicting the unnecessary pain. 35. The Court has cited both contemporary American values to support its prohibition of certain punishments and historical values to support its validation of certain punishments. 36. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). In Weems, the Court noted that the cruel and unusual punishment clause was not fastened to the obsolete, but could acquire an expansive meaning as "public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice." Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 378 (1910). The Supreme Court has used this changing social mores concept to support its invalidation of punishments that are inherently cruel and/or an affront to human dignity (Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 329, 349 (1910)), and punishments that are disproportionate to the offense (Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)).

9 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:351 stated as one reason for the approval of public shooting as a method of execution. 37 Likewise, the Court has implicitly upheld capital punishment by stating that "the death penalty has been employed throughout our history and in a day where it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the constitutional concept of cruelty." 3 8 In contrast, at other times the Court has ignored historical usage when invalidating punishments as "cruel and unusual." In Weems, it ignored the historical usage of the penalty of cadena temporal, which had been traditionally used in the Phillipines. 2 9 In Robinson, the Court also ignored public consent to a punishment supported by historical usage, going so far as to state: "California was not the only state to treat mere addiction as criminal; punishment as a social response to disease has ancient antecedents." 40 It becomes apparent that the public opinion rationale is not a "test" for the determination of what constitutes cruelty. It is more appropriately termed a justification for the Court's more subjective interpretation of the cruelty question. The definitional aspects center on the first three principles, with the "public opinion" doctrine acting as a source of enrichment for the basis of the opinion. As was noted previously, these various definitions occur consistently in eighth amendment cases. They obviously are not clear cut and at some points they seem to converge on a sense of the "dignity of man." This lack of cohesiveness is not limited to the definitional aspects of the eighth amendment; the decisions regarding the death penalty also fail with regard to consistency. 37. Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, (1878). The Court observed that the firing squad had been used in the Utah Territory for at least a quarter of a century and is still in use by the Army. Id. at Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 99 (1958). Yet it is ironic that in the same case, the Court ignored historical and contemporary American values and examined the statute books of other civilized nations to support its holding that denationalization was cruel and unusual. Id. at See, e.g., Goldberg & Dershowitz, Declaring the Death Penalty Unconstitutional, 83 HARV. L. REv (1970). 39. The Court stated that "[tihere are degrees of homicide that are not punished so severely" in America and that Weems' punishment would amount to no more than a large fine here. Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 380 ('1910). 40. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 676 (1962). In fact, one commentator has noted that the punishment of addicts was less widely authorized than the death penaly at the time, but more so than any punishment theretofore struck down by the Court under the eighth amendment. See Goldberg & Dershowitz, supra note 38, at The Court's rulings in Weems and Robinson seem to suggest that the Supreme Court will ignore traditional values if it chooses to invalidate a certain punishment. It is interesting to note that in Robinson the Supreme Court did not justify striking down the statute because of disapproval exemplified by contemporary American standards or the standards of other civilized nations. Rather, it asserted that the public, if fully informed, would condemn it. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962). This assertion suggests that the Supreme Court believed that its opinion was a more reliable factor in determining whether a punishment would violate the eighth amendment than uninformed public opinion. If this is true, one can only wonder why public opinion is held as a viable means of evaluation.

10 1979] DEATH PENALTY Death Penalty as Per Se "Cruel and Unusual" Although the Supreme Court has held certain types of punishments to be inherently "cruel and unusual," 4 1 before Gregg v. Georgia 42 the Court did not directly confront the issue of whether capital punishment per se was unconstitutional under the eighth and fourteenth amendments. 4 3 The Court had numerous opportunities to address the question earlier,,but managed to avoid the problem in a variety of ways. 4 For example, in one case, 45 the Court limited its grant of certiorari to consideration of the narrow issue of whether jurors could be excluded because they objected to the propriety of the death penalty. 46 In another case, the procedural question of whether juries could have absolute discretion to impose the death penalty was considered. 47 The Court further avoided the opportunity of resolving the per se issue by denying certiorari to hear a case 4 in which the death penalty was imposed upon a convicted rapist who had neither taken nor endangered human life, and by reversing on other grounds a case which presented a strong case for a per se ruling on the constitutionality of the death penalty This lack of direct validation did not, however, prevent the Court from implicitly sanctioning capital punishment. Several factors indicated the Court's acceptance of the death penalty. First, it upheld certain methods of execution. Public shooting, 50 electrocution 5 ' and even a second electrocu- 41. But see note 26 and accompanying text supra U.S. 153, (1976). 43. The eighth amendment's cruel and unusual clause is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. See Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). 44. See England, Capital Punishment in the Light of Constitutional Evolution: An Analysis of Distinctions Between Furman and Gregg, 52 NOTRE DAME LAW. 596, 607 (1977). 45. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968). 46. In Witherspoon, an Illinois statute provided for challenges for cause in murder trials for jurors who were opposed to capital punishment. The Court held that it was unconstitutional to exclude jurors who had conscientious scruples against the death penalty, and asserted that a state may not entrust the determination of whether a man is innocent or guilty to a tribunal organized to convict. Id. at MeGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971). The McGautha Court held that due process is not violated if the power to pronounce life or death in capital cases is left to the untrammeled discretion of the jury. 48. Rudolph v. Alabama, 275 Ala. 115, 152 So.2d 662, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 889 (1963). 49. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Boykin had been sentenced to death for simple robbery. The petitioner argued that the death penalty was per se cruel and unusual and also offered a narrower theory, that it was at least impermissible for a crime that did not involve a killing or serious injury. Brief for Petitioner at 8-24, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). The Court reversed on the grounds that the plea was not intelligent and voluntary and made no reference to the constitutionality of the death penalty. 50. Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878). Public shooting was upheld as an "instantaneous and painless" method of execution on the basis of territorial custom and lack of congressional intent to limit methods of execution. See note 13 and accompanying text supra. 51. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890). Electrocution was upheld as an acceptable form of execution if it was enacted by the legislature for a humane purpose. Id. at 447.

11 360 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:351 tion when the first one failed 52 were held to be permissible. Second, the Court explicitly ruled that capital punishment did not violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. 53 Finally, some justices actually expressed approval of the death penalty in their opinions. In the electrocution case, In re Kemmler, the majority opinion expressly recognized that the punishment of death itself was not cruel, since the word "cruel" as used in the eighth amendment implied "something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life." 5 4 These cases provided the "necessary foundation" 55 for the validation of the death penalty as per se constitutional. Prior decisions had not squarely held that the punishment of death "does not invariably violate the Constitution." 5 6 II. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS IN FURMAN AND THE SUBSEQUENT OPINIONS After years of taking various approaches to the issue, the Supreme Court made some breakthrough in its analysis of the constitutionality of capital punishment in Furman v. Georgia. 57 It consolidated three separate cases in 52. Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947). 53. Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (1959). Williams had been charged with murder in Oklahoma, where he entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Thereafter, he was charged in another Oklahoma court with a kidnapping involved in the same occurrence. He was sentenced to death. The Court asserted that the death sentence for kidnapping, which was within the range of punishments authorized for that crime by Oklahoma law did not violate due process of law. Id. at In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447 (1890). In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 99 (1958), the plurality stated that the death penalty is not unconstitutionally cruel because it has been employed throughout history and is still widely accepted. In McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971), Justice Black stated "[tihe Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishments... these words cannot be read to outlaw capital punishment because that punishment was in common use and authorized by law here and in other countries from which our ancestors came at the time the Amendment was adopted." Id. at 226 (Black, J., concurring). 55. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 168 (1976). 56. Id. at 169. Although there was no strong disapproval of capital punishment per se expressed by the Supreme Court, abolitionists relied on dicta in certain cases to argue its unconstitutionality. For example, in Rudolph v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 889 (1963) (Goldberg, J., dissenting), Justice Goldberg asserted that he would have granted certiorari to consider the question of whether the death penalty could be imposed for the crime of rape. He suggested that it may be unconstitutional if: (1) it produces hardship disproportionately greater than the harm it seeks to prevent or; (2) a less severe punishment could as effectively achieve the permissible end of punishment. However, because of the lack of authoritative statements by the Supreme Court espousing this view, abolitionists were forced to rely on eighth amendment cases. These holdings did not directly deal with the death penalty but merely presented general constitutional arguments that could be used against it. Therefore, abolitionists especially used the themes of unnecessary cruelty and evolving standards of decency U.S. 238 (1972). The legal commentary on Furman has been extensive. See, e.g., Junker, The Death Penalty Cases: A Preliminary Comment, 48 WASH. L. REV. 95 (1972); Polsby, The Death of Capital Punishment: Furman v. Georgia, 1972 Sup. CT. REV. 1; Wollen, The Death Penalty After Furman, 4 Lov. CHI. L.J. 339 (1973).

12 1979] DEATH PENALTY which the death penalty had been imposed. 58 In one case, 5 9 the defendant had been convicted of murder, while in the other two the accused had been found guilty of rape. 6 0 Certiorari was limited to the specific issue of whether the death penalty in those cases violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment. 61 The case proved to be a landmark decision because it was held that capital punishment as it was then being administered was in and of itself "cruel and unusual." 6 2 However, the per curiam decision, in which the majority expressed differing views as to the fundamental issues, created much confusion. Five justices agreed that the punishment of death was unconstitutional. 63 Justices Douglas, Stewart and White did not favor total elimination of capital punishment, but they believed the discretionary death statutes were "cruel and unusual" because they were being imposed "capriciously, wantonly and freakishly." 64 Because the death penalty was being administered in this manner and because it was being imposed so infrequently, it was found to have lost any deterrent effect. 65 Also, Justice Douglas believed the penalty was being imposed in a racially discriminatory fashion. 66 Justices Brennan 6 7 and Marshall 6 8 favored total elimination of the death penalty, but they also shared the view that its application had been capricious. The single holding which emerged was that the arbitrary and capricious manner of providing for capital punishment under statutes which left juries with undirected discretion 69 constituted cruel and unusual punishment and accordingly violated 58. Furman v. Georgia, 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.E.2d 628 (1969); Jackson v. Georgia, 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.E.2d 501 (1969); Branch v. Texas, 447 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 59. Furman v. Georgia, 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.E.2d 628 (1969). 60. Jackson v. Georgia, 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.E.2d 501 (1969); Branch v. Texas, 447 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 61. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 239 (1972). 62. Id. at Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White and Marshall filed opinions invalidating the death penalty. 408 U.S. 240 (1976). 64. Id. at Id. at 312. See Comment, The Supreme Court, 1975 Term, 90 HARV. L. REV. 63 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Comment, 1975 Term], see also Polsby, supra note U.S. 240, 257 (1976) (Douglas, J., concurring) U.S. 240, 305 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring) U.S. 240, (1976) (Marshall, J., concurring). 69. Various problems are associated with jury discretion in capital cases. Juries may refuse to convict because of some vaguely defined defense asserted as a justification for the defendant's actions. Juries may choose to convict or acquit because they dislike or like the defendant's attorney. Moreover, juries may discriminate on the basis of sex, race or the defendant's personal characteristics. See Gale, S. 1 and the Death Penalty: The Persistence of Discretion, 9 Loy. L.A.L. REv. 251, 299 (1976). For an excellent legal commentary on the historical problems of jury discretion in death penalty cases, see Knowlton, Problems of Jury Discretion in Capital Cases, 101 U. PA. L. REV (1953). After Furman, commentators analyzed the issue of jury discretion with respect to the mandatory statutes. See, e.g., Gerber, A Death Penalty We Can Live With, 50 NOTRE DAME LAW. 251, (1974); Mackey, The Inutility of Mandatory Capital Punishment: An Historical Note, 54 B.U.L. REV. 32 (1974).

13 362 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:351 the eighth amendment. 70 The Furman opinion left open the important question of whether the death penalty was unconstitutional per se. Additionally, the Court failed to set guidelines for the enactment of a constitutionally acceptable death penalty statute. Since Furman, however, the judiciary has struggled to provide a more definitive statement on the issue. The post-furman decisions have attempted to formulate a more concise pronouncement regarding the constitutionality of capital punishment. The subsequent case law has held that death per se is not violative of the eight amendment, 71 but that its applicability should be limited to cases of murder. 72 The Court has also limited the scope of the death penalty by fbrbidding mandatory sentencing statutes 73 and by requiring the use of guided discretion statutes 74 providing for consideration of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 75 Each of these post-furman decisions will be analyzed separately so that a clear understanding of the case law may be achieved. The outer boundaries of constitutional compliance will be initially discussed, then the cases dealing with the guidelines for permissible infliction of the death penalty will be presented. Cruel and Unusual Per Se In Gregg v. Georgia, 76 the Court held that death itself was not necessarily a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the eighth and fourteenth amendments. It made this determination based on a two-part test which focused on public opinion and the degree of severity of the sentence. First, it held that capital punishment was not contrary to the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." 77 In support of this statement, the Court cited the long history of acceptance in this country of the death penalty and took note of the enactment of new capital punishment statutes subsequent to the Furman decision as well as the apparent willingness of juries to continue to impose death sentences. Next, the Court found that capital punishment did not offend the "dignity of man" because it was not a severe or unnecessary infliction of pain, nor 70. But cf. McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971). The McGautha Court held that the due process clause does not require the jury to be provided with guided discretion. Since both Furman and McGautha concern the procedural aspect of imposing the death penalty, the two opinions are conflicting. 71. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). See Tao, The Constitutional Status of Capital Punishment: An Analysis of Gregg, Jurek, Roberts and Woodson, 54 U. DET. J. URB. L. 345 (1977); Comment, Resurrection of Capital Punishment-The 1976 Death Penalty Cases, 81 DICK. L. REv. 543 (1977) [hereinafter cited as Comment]. 72. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). 73. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976). 74. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976). 75. Lockett v. Ohio, 98 S. Ct (1978) U.S. 153 (1976). 77. Id. at 173.

14 1979] DEATH PENALTY 36,3 was it grossly disproportionate to the crime of murder. 78 To determine whether the sanction imposed was so totally without penological justification that it resulted in the gratuitous infliction of suffering, the Court discussed justifiable punishment in terms of social aims of deterrence and retribution. It invoked judicial restraint by deferring the determination of the factual question of deterrence to the legislatures' judgment, and further noted inconclusiveness of the studies regarding whether capital punishment was in fact a deterrent to crime. The Court also stated that, although retribution was no longer the dominant objective in criminal law, capital punishment might serve as an essential expression of society's moral outrage and was, therefore, an appropriate response to certain crimes. 79 In Coker v. Georgia, 80 however, death was held to be a disproportionate penalty for rape. It was found to be excessive in eighth amendment terms because public opinion required such a conclusion. As in Gregg, the Court cited history arid legislative and jury responses to capital rape cases to support its conclusion. It noted that at no time in the last fifty years had a majority of states authorized death as a punishment for rape. 8 Unlike Gregg, no reference was made to whether death was an effective means of retribution to express society's moral outrage. No statement was made concerning deterrence. The Coker Court merely concluded that the death penalty was an excessive penalty for a rapist, as opposed to a murderer, because the rapist had not unjustifiably taken a human life. In noting that the existence of any aggravating circumstances would not effect its conclusion, the Court stated: "1]ife is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not over and normally is not beyond repair." 8 2 When the Coker holding that death 78. Id. at 187. Post-Furman cases also elaborated on the "excessiveness" standard in evaluating cruel and unusual punishment. In Coker, the Court held that the eighth amendment bars not only punishments that are "barbaric" but also those that are "excessive" in relation to the crime committed. A punishment is excessive if it: (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592 (1977). 79. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, (1976) U.S. 584 (1977). 81. Id. at In nine out of ten rape convictions in Georgia, juries had not imposed the death sentence. Id. at 597. One study revealed that in 42 cases of rape, a verdict of guilty on that charge was rendered three times. H. KALVEN & H. ZEISEL, THE AMERICAN JURY 250, 141 Table 39 (1966). Yet, in this same sample the judges would have convicted the accused of rape seven times as often. Id. at & Table 73. In cases of "aggravated" rape, juries convicted of the higher offense in 46 out of 64 cases. The judges would have done so in 47 cases. Id. at & Table 72. Although this study indicates a reluctance of jurors to render guilty verdicts in rape cases, consider a jury's reaction to an extreme, socially repugnant situation. See Florida Jury Recommends Death for Man Convicted of Raping Each of His Three Daughters, 3 Juv. JUST. Dic. 3 (1975). For further discussion of jurors' reactions to rape victims, see Berger, Man's Trial, Woman's Tribulation: Rape Cases in the Courtroom, 77 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 30 (1977) U.S. 584, 598 (1977). But see the concurring opinion in the same case. In response

15 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 28:351 is disproportionate for rape because no life has been taken is considered in conjunction with the Gregg finding that death is not always disproportionate for murder because murder is an extreme crime suitable to an extreme sanction, the Court's excessiveness test now appears to be one of a life for a life, an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth. 83 It remains to be seen, however, whether this reasoning will be taken to its logical conclusion. The Court has never stated whether the death penalty would be excessive if imposed on a defendant found guilty under an accountability theory, but who did not in fact take a human life. 8 4 Consequently, even the outer boundaries of permissible use of the death penalty have not been constructively formulated. Mandatory Sentencing Statutes Gregg and Coker were concerned with the substantive aspects of when and for what crimes the death penalty may constitutionally be applied. Other decisions have also invalidated the death penalty in certain situations, but in those cases the procedures for imposing the penalty were attacked. Both North Carolina and Louisiana had reacted to the concern in Furman over unbridled jury discretion by enacting statutes making the death penalty mandatory for certain crimes. 8 5 The mandatory statutes did not provide for a bifurcated trial, consideration of mitigating circumstances, or appellate review. 86 If during a single trial the jury found the defendant guilty of firstdegree murder, death was the only punishment available. The Supreme Court held in Woodson v. North Carolina, 7 and Roberts (Stanislaus) v. to the majority's distinction between the rapist and the murderer, Justice Powell asserted that "[slome victims are so grievously injured physically or psychologically that life is beyond repair." Id. at 603 (Powell, J., concurring). Women often experience great shame after being raped. Society frequently attaches stigma to victims of crime, and the rape victim suffers an extreme decrease in status. Because she is widely regarded as "damaged goods," the woman may view herself as a social leper and develop a generalized suspicion of men. Her intimate life may deteriorate and her closest relationships may founder and die. See Berger, supra note 81, at 23. See also COHEN, SUCCUMBING TO RAPE, RAPE VICTIMOLOGY XV (L. Schultz ed. 1975); Note, The Victim In a Forcible Rape Case: A Feminist View, 11 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 335 (1973). 83. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 621 (1977) (Burger, J., dissenting). Justice Burger concludes that "[t]he clear implication of today's holding appears to be that the death penalty may be properly imposed only as to crimes resulting in death of the victim." Id. 84. Lockett v. Ohio, 98 S. Ct (1978). 85. The post-furman statutes are listed in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 179 n.23 (1976). For a detailed analysis of many of these statutes, see Note, Discretion and the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty Statutes, 87 HARV. L. REV (1974). 86. The states which enacted mandatory statutes ignored Justice Douglas' characterization of jury discretion in Furman as "untrammeled," rather than discretion per se. Discretion is inherent in the criminal justice system and plays an important function. For an analysis of the function of discretion, see Mackey, supra note 69; Comment, The Supreme Judicial Court and the Death Penalty: The Effects of Judicial Choice on Legislative Options, 54 B.U.L. REv. 158, 181 (1974); Comment, Capital Punishment after Furman, 64 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 281, 284 (1975) U.S. 280 (1976).